Thursday, 30 August 2012

The Sex Partner of the SSM now to be known as SPOSSM is commonly supposed to be a paedophile.

If SSMs are to be stigmatised, then so should their partners, who are generally feared to be paedophiles.

It is this fear of paedophiles that evolved into the CRB check. The CRB check is of course a tax on employment in order to protect SSMs and their illegitimate offspring from the attentions of the paedo SPOSSM.

The father of the illegitimate children whose mother he is still living with would be called FOBMOB (Father of Bastard Still Living With Mother of Bastard) while a never married mother who lives with the father of her illegitimate offspring is called MOBFOB (Mother of Bastard Still Living With Father of Bastard).

"It's further worrying evidence that the Anglican church is a broken vessel; I have always been opposed to female clergy.

Theologically a Christian believes that Jesus is wholly God and wholly Man; he has two natures united in one hypostasis. Jesus' human nature is perfect and flawless; to suggest He possessed a mental aberration is utterly flawed from a theological perspective and contrary to Christian teaching as established by the early church councils including the Council of Ephesus in the fifth century AD. This is subscribed as doctrine by the Anglican church.

One has to wonder whether the individual concerned is ignorant of doctrine (unlikely) in which case such a person should not be a member of the clergy or wilfully heretical with a sinister agenda in which case she ought to be struck off (excommunication ought to be the immediate punishment).

It's just another example of the downward collapse of Protestant Christianity that erupted from the schism of the 'Reformation'. On the other hand it strengthens my personal belief in rejecting the Anglican communion."

It would probably be more satisfying to have her burnt at the stake for her blasphemy and heresy which are aggravated by the fact that this woman who says Christ was mad is herself a clergywoman.

Because British women are so cheap they choose wasters, losers and weirdos to mate with.

Because British women who make make irrational reproductive choices are rewarded with state largesse.

Because a degenerate and unproductive slut and bastard populace would naturally seek to perpetuate itself at the expense of the healthy and productive, unless something is done to stop it.

Because the degenerate government of a degenerate populace is so cowardly it dare not say boo to promiscuous and immoral women who make irrational reproductive choices for fear of alienating the female vote.

Because an emasculated and effeminate political class is too afraid of controversy to propose the narrowing of the franchise to exclude the unproductive and non-taxpaying from voting.

It is interesting that Iceland which has the highest rate of illegitimacy was the first country in the West to go bankrupt, consumed by the demons of irresponsible borrowing and lending by individuals and the government of Iceland. (This is also known as usury, which the Koran forbids. Notice that whatever the Koran forbids the West practice, and whatever the Koran enjoins the West despise? If we can break down into a tick list the prohibitions and exhortations of the Koran, I fear the West will be found to be wanting in almost every regard. That is why the next new ideology, after the collapse of liberalism and feminism, will be Islam.)

The rape laws of Sweden are undoubtedly matriarchal. It seems that in Sweden a woman may consent to intercourse with you and then retrospectively withdraw that consent if you do not call her as she demands and expect. This means you will find yourself extradited for a charge of sexual abuse which you had no idea you had committed at the time, if you offend a Swedish slut by treating her with the contempt she deserves.

When all is said and done it shall be demonstrated that the corruption of women corrupt the morals of men and government, and the next generation will certainly suffer.

Liberalism and feminism is nothing more than a diseased, decaying and dying husk of the walking dead.

Galloway, the MP for Bradford West, had claimed that even if the complaints made against Assange by two women in Sweden were "100% true", they still could not be considered rape. "They don't constitute rape," he said in a video podcast on Monday. "At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it."

He went on: "Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them. It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said: 'Do you mind if I do it again?' It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape, or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."

Is there any other female commentator apart from me who thinks George Galloway's comments were perfectly reasonable?

The very short version: Assange had consensual sex with two women, unbeknownst to one another, who were friends. They had hurt feelings afterwards and confided to a female police officer that Assange had engaged in sex with one of them without a condom, having worn a condom the night before. In the case of the second woman, Assange’s condom broke but he continued to climax, anyway.

One of the women had previously circulated on the Internet a how-to guide titled “7 Steps to Legal Revenge,” which “explains how women can use courts to get their own back on unfaithful lovers.”

In order to do justice and to discourage sluts having power over men and politics, I think it is imperative to take into account the reputation and the number of sex partners of women claiming to be rape victims in order to assess the reliability of their evidence.

In the case of these rape allegations by these Swedish sluts, I think the argument of de minimis should be used by accused.

It has been said by Jeffrey Marshall that sex is a symphony with several movements and the evening and the morning after should merge into a seamless whole. It is not required for a man to ask if he may penetrate a woman again if intercourse were interrupted for some reason and subsequently resumed, surely?

Or the following will be the position most men will find themselves in.

You have sex. Something interrupts you. You resume intercourse but did not ask her permission this time. You later find yourself accused of rape by the slut you fucked if you ignore her demand that you call her to thank her for the cheap slut sex she gave you.

Of course, there are extreme cases, when the man's sexual behaviour is perfectly acceptable the night before, but the next morning, after a quarrel, intercourse without consent takes place.

If that happened to me, I suppose I would have to take it on the chin, because I would feel too stupid saying this in court, but I would have my revenge another way.

Saturday, 18 August 2012

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

Friday, 17 August 2012

What is the problem I refer to? It is of course the problem of widespread illegitimacy.

What is the problem of widespread illegitimacy?

It causes degeneracy.

What is degeneracy?

It means that the next generation has lower standards of behaviour and education than the previous generation and has allowed the insertion of the thin end of the wedge that leads to the slippery slope.

It means that your society will become unstable, the fortunes of your nation and civilisation decline and fall. Invaders will come to exploit and abuse you, and there will be nothing you can do. In time, your race and your nation will come to be treated as pariahs and inferiors, slaves and degenerates, and the name of your race synonymous with racial inferiority.

While the people most responsible for this state of affairs are sluts who go on to become SSMs, there is another hidden problem to be contended with.

Let me list the categories of people who are part of the problem of widespread illegitimacy who are not themselves SSMs:

men who have sired illegitimate offspring

MOBFOBs (Mothers of Bastard still living with Father of their Bastard)

FOBMOBs (Father of Bastard still living with Mother of their Bastard)

parents of SSMs and parents of sons who have sired illegitimate offspring ie grandparents of illegitimate grandchildren

those who refuse to denounce SSMs and their Running Dogs

Let us call of the above the Running Dogs of SSMs until and unless they admit publicly that what they did was wrong or a failure on their part.

If any children of mine present me with illegitimate grandchildren they would know they will be disowned and disinherited.

Maggie Chapman of UKIP admits to having 4 illegitimate grandchildren.

I have admitted to having an affair with a married man.

Which of us is morally more culpable? She is. Whatever I have done, I do not have illegitimate offspring and hope I will never have illegitimate grandchildren, particularly as I have made known that I would disinherit and disown any offspring of mine who presented me with illegitimate grandchildren.

If you, a married woman, have a daughter or son who has illegitimate offspring, add 1 point per legitimate child who has given you illegitimate grandchildren.

Therefore, Maggie Chapman of UKIP has 4 points (she has one legitimate daughter who has given her 4 illegitimate grandchildren) while I am still a Perfect Zero, even as I admit to have committed fornication and caused a man to commit adultery.

However, if Maggie's daughter marries, Maggie will become a Perfect Zero, like me. There is hope for her yet.

If her other daughter, who is married, subsequently divorces, it will not affect her score since this scoring system is solely focused about SSMs. (It is therefore does not register acts of extramarital sex that have produced no illegitimate offspring.)

Maggie's daughter's score is 4 by the way.

This method of accounting may seem rather self-serving to you, but, if you accept my argument that the purpose of the Biblical and Koranic prohibition against fornication is to prevent widespread illegitimacy and therefore widespread degeneracy in your society, the evil this prohibition was designed to prevent now becomes clear.

While I acknowledge that all fornicatresses are sluts, the difference between a slut (a woman who has extramarital sex with a man not her husband) and an SSM is the difference between a suspected criminal and a convicted criminal.

In the age of gender equality, this system also applies to men, though I accept it is sometimes difficult for them to know if they have illegitimate offspring unless informed by the woman they impregnated who bore their child.

However, the same system of scoring applies to men. I just wanted to be clear on that.

YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

PICKTHAL: The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.

SHAKIR: (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

024.003

YUSUFALI: Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.

PICKTHAL: The adulterer shall not marry save an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress none shall marry save an adulterer or an idolater. All that is forbidden unto believers.

SHAKIR: The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.

Autism - Doesn't that just mean being socially inadequate, being unable to control your emotions or see things from anyone else's point of view? I guess we all suffer from that to some extent. You are either a disgrace to your parents or badly parented.

No ifs, no buts, no more excuses.

Look to the mother.

Praise good mothers and stigmatise bad ones, especially the ones who are SSMs or whose daughters are SSMs.

Tuesday, 7 August 2012

London 2012 Paralympics: Royal Engineer Captain Nick Beighton has been selected to lead the Paralympic rowing team at the London 2012 Games. Nick, who lost both his legs in an explosion in Afghanistan in October 2009, will lead the team of eight rowers selected for the squad. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity isn't it?" Captain Beighton said. "The Olympics aren't going to come back to the UK while I'm competing and to think that two years ago I'd never have dreamed that this would be an opportunity is very exciting."

Daryll Christopher says:

"There is no longer any Al Queda in Afghanistan, the guys are there to implement women's rights. There are very few women. I couldn't care less about women's rights, this is one guy who will not be fighting any wars.

When these mutilated, men are discharged, they have to queue up behind single mothers for housing, they have to fight for compensation, while some single mothers are raking in over £25k in benefits. They have to queue up behind women for government jobs because the government employs 85% women. Many prisoners, homeless people and mentally ill people are ex soldiers. Nothing is done for them, compare this to the very impressive programs for women. Only a fool would want to be a soldier.

It is only the men who do the dirty work. The women sit at home on their backsides and demand more and more women's rights. These guys are fighting to impose women's rights abroad, but at home they have very few rights. Some can't see their kids, some have been cleaned out in divorce settlements etc. How stupid can you be?I pity the men who join. I respect them, but they are a disgrace to men.Men are always championing the handful of women in the military, as if anybody would miss them if they were not there.

How many women have been killed on the frontline?

There are just a handful of women, they do not make difference, all the sacrifices are made by men.

They just sit on their backsides at home demanding women rights while men do all the dirty work.

A few women on the front line as medics will hardly win a war. They only amount to a handful, it is typical of the BBC to focus on a few medics, instead of the brave men who do the dirty work.

Typical to focus on the minute contribution that women make in the army, on that day, several men could have died, but all you remember are 4 women coming under fire, really amazing.

Since the country is run for the benefit of women, and the fact that there are more women than men, they should do make up the bulk of the army.

They should be the ones doing the fighting and killing.

The policy is that women should not serve on the front line. They make up over 50% of the population, according to you, there are 16% of women on the front line, I doubt that, but since they are raping the benefit system, the council houses, getting generous divorce settlements etc, why is it only 16%?

If men want to fight other men for women's rights, good luck to them. I want no part of it. I wouldn't fight another man for brownie points from women.

Straight men get no benefits from the system, yet they do they bulk of the fighting and dieing. I will pass. I am happy for the Lesbians to take over.

As long as men are happy to die and kill for no apparent reason, they will always be slaves.

Slaves to the government and slaves to women. Women are not queuing up to join the military. They are only interested in the easy, well paid, no risk attached government jobs where they can't be sacked. These macho men who go on foreign expeditions to kill other men, do so in vain, women and gays are in charge. When was the last time the government passed a law that benefited straight men, I can't remember either, case closed.

You can always spot a slave man from a mile away. They are always quick to praise the very insignificant contribution a woman makes, always finding reasons why women deliver a crap service in the NHS and Education sector, despite being very well paid, always willing to physically dismember another man to score brownie points with the girls, and they are always quick to label a man as a misogynist for legitimately criticizing women.

The women repay them by demanding even more women's rights, taking their jobs, sending them to fight wars to impose feminism on other men in their countries and consigning them to the back of every queue when they need to access a government service. It never occurs to a slave man that women claim that they want equality, but they do not seek equality in divorce settlements, child access, employment, dangerous work or joining the army, they also want the same pay for doing less work.

The worse thing about a slave man, is that even after he has been cleaned out in a divorce settlement, prevented from seeing his kids, thrown out of his house etc, his #1 priority is to get another girlfriend/wife and repeat the process all over again. He is totally conditioned to put women first and totally owned by women and the government.

These poor men can't see the bigger picture, it never occurs to a slave man that women do not campaign for men's rights, nor do they offer men anything positive, they expect everything for nothing from men, while grabbing the little men have left, but the slaveman is eager to please and climb up the browning points chart, even if it consigns him to the bottom of the economic ladder, quite amazing."

Monday, 6 August 2012

Why don’t we restrict votes to people who actually pay something into the system? No, I am not suggesting a return to property-based eligibility; although that system worked quite well when Parliament administered not just Britain but most of the world. Today, income would be a much better test, setting the bar as low as possible; perhaps including everyone who pays at least £100 of income tax each year.

This seems to be an excellent idea. I suspect this would go down very well with the male American voter, but I think the problem with this is that the Republican Party are probably too pussy to propose it, judging from the male-female ratio of the people below in charge of the party.

They really should be getting together with Grover Norquist and Ron Paul and say screw you to the Israel lobby. Tell them the gentile American male is no longer cannon fodder for the tribes of Israel. But they will not be able to get up the courage because they have submitted themselves to their women.

Half the Executive Directors of NICE are men and the other half women. It seems that women are half responsible for the madness and silliness of mad and silly decisions.

My Facebook friend Daryll Christopher thinks that health and education are stuffed with over-promoted female mediocrities and incompetents who seem to be beyond criticism.

Is it now time to repeal the Equality Act before women do even more damage and make themselves even more unpopular, before, eventually, after the backlash, being sent back to the kitchen barefoot and pregnant?

We are a society that rewards female promiscuity. Shirley Conran was awarded an OBE in 2004. This means we are ruled by a pornocracy and the men in charge of the ship of state are just a bunch of loser porn-addicts regularly jerking themselves off to free online porn so much that they cannot think straight or do anything else.

What a terrible thing to say. What a horrible admission of failure. The rotten face of feminism begins to noticeably decompose. It is quite obvious why her son no longer speaks to her. If you are famous and your mother is a slag and boasts about being a slag and writes about being a slag, you would disown her, wouldn't you?

Thursday, 2 August 2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l7wyv
Inside the Ethics Committee presented by Joan Bakewell demonstrating how the matriarchy wastes your money on hopeless cases and pisses on the male taxpayer just because it can.

However, we were told that a tenner was every now and then given to them, so they can prettify themselves to better go about infecting some punter with an STI.

Let them get knocked up and let them keep and neglect and kill their misbegotten babies.

And lash them 100 times for each misbegotten baby they have.

They should be seen to suffer to discourage the others.

What is bioethics? Shouldn't it be eugenics? What is the point of bioethics to the over-burdened taxpayer? Does it serve any moral or practical purpose at all? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics

Richard Ashcroft at http://twitter.com/qmulbioethics# seems to think I am not worth engaging with simply because I was expelled from a nationalist party for daring to discuss eugenics.

Imagine the Big Bad BNP so fucking pussified that I was expelled just for saying I would not wish to bring up a severely disabled baby! Does this mean that the rest of the country are just gagging to do so? Apparently. Or that they are too cowardly even to say so, for fear of giving offence to mothers who make shit reproductive choices and produce dud offspring they want to inflict on the rest of us. Why are men afraid of women like that? I think it must be because feminism has killed off all the real men and only the ones who think like women with penis extensions AKA the metrosexual new men remain. You can imagine the morals and integrity of a society like that then.

Presiding over this stinking mess are the matriarchs one of whom is Joan Bakewell. She did actually mention eugenics in her programme and then lifted her skirts up and ran out of the room before anything happened. Is this the kind of presenter presenting the kind of crap programme male taxpayers pay their licence fee for?

What is Richard Ashcroft for? So people like Joan Bakewell can make their shitty pissy bloody bleeding heart programmes every week and mock the male taxpayer?

Mind you, Richard Ashcroft seems very good at sucking up to his female colleagues. Secret of his success probably. Yeah, but what is he FOR?

Does he just dream of increasingly stupid ways of wasting taxpayers' money?

Still if his female colleagues and the Matriarch Joan Bakewell (the unthinking man's crumpet, more like) like that sort of shit, he should do all right in academia.

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

0752
The number of people in England and Wales has gone up by just over 7% in the past ten years and in that time the number of people in Germany has fallen by about 1%, so why should it be so different? Dr Julie Smith, professor of international relations at Cambridge, and economist Dr Ruth Lea debate population and economic growth.

I remember listening to this and thinking it very significant, but cannot find any reference to it anywhere nor remember exactly why I thought this was significant nor can I find a way of listening to it again.

Is there any chance that either or both of you would be so kind as to refresh my memory about what you thought was said?

Thank you in advance.

RL to CK
Monday, 30 July 2012, 13:03
Subject: Re: Your discussion on the Today Programme on 17 July

I discussed the relationship between the working-age population to the ability of the economy to grow. Germany's working-age population is shrinking - ours is not - and this has implications for Germany's and our long-term growth "potentials".